Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum name change
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(2)
Message 53 of 128 (549990)
03-11-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by hooah212002
03-11-2010 9:10 PM


Re: BOM vs Bible
I'm not the one who has a "no true scotsman fallacy" problem.
Whoever accused me of that fallacy has a much bigger problem than I do, believe it or not.
I'm going to heaven when I die, and he.....
I'm good, hooaah. I'm not angry, or upset. But, I do feel like a wasted a LOT of time by talking with you guys when I should have just ignored the junk.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by hooah212002, posted 03-11-2010 9:10 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 57 of 128 (549995)
03-11-2010 9:26 PM


--Yeah, I sincerely apologize OP. I feel guilty for stealing the conversation.
---......I'm a creationist like you are, and am very proud to be one.
---Oh, and thanks for the 1 on message 53, guys. I appreciate it. The truth is bitter, isn't it?
---God loves you. Repent or perish.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2010 10:00 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 03-12-2010 12:03 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 71 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-12-2010 12:25 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 59 of 128 (549997)
03-11-2010 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by hooah212002
03-11-2010 9:10 PM


Re: BOM vs Bible
See, dr., the difference is, I am not the one who makes the absurd statement that every time an "alleged" christian fucks up, he/she is not a "true" christian. If you believe in god of the christian bible, guess what? You are a christian.
Ahh, don't you wish it were that simple, hooah?
"If you believe in the God of the Bible, you are Christian"???? Really?!
No wonder you get all your facts about Christianity wrong.
hooah212002 re- writes:
For the life of me, I can't understand how intelligent folks can't see through the Hindu's jibberish. It's not even good literature, but alas, deception is powerful.
Hey...you're cheating. If you're gonna talk about religious scriptures, then say bhagavad gita......hindus are people who adhere to its teachings, not pieces of literature.
I say the same thing Buz says about any religion (albeit mainly chrisitanity).
OF course you would, darling. For you don't even understand what religion is. What should I say to someone who thinks God doesn't exist because He's not physically observed?....other than you have serious mental problems. When by definition God is a not physical being and you guys say that proven once by empiricism, you will believe He exists......tell me, what do I say in response????? Should I think that you don't understand faith, or that you are mentally derailed? Either option makes no difference to me.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by hooah212002, posted 03-11-2010 9:10 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by hooah212002, posted 03-11-2010 10:24 PM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 62 of 128 (550001)
03-11-2010 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rahvin
03-11-2010 10:00 PM


...but you'll never ever convince a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an Atheist, or anyone else that you're spreading "good news" with threats of Hell...whether you believe it to be true or not.
So, how can "good" news be spread without mentioning the "bad" element that the "good" eradicates?
Just so you know, that particular tactic never works on someone who doesn't already subscribe to your theology.
1. This isn't a tactic, Rahvin. Its truth.
2. Perhaps you are forgetting that there considerable many here that once believed, like yourself. It shouldn't really be more cumbersome to hear what they've already heard AND despised to the fullest extent. When you guys have reached your mental saturation point, you become de-sensitized to truth. IOW, I feel like nothing that I say can make you hate God more. You see?
But you know, I believe God's grace is far more profound than our folly.
You've effectively given those you've experienced friction with already even more reason to dislike you and react to your every word with hostility.
My dear Rahvin, they can't dislike me more.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2010 10:00 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2010 2:23 AM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 65 of 128 (550007)
03-11-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Granny Magda
03-11-2010 10:22 PM


Re: BOM vs Bible
GM writes:
Why should hooah be able to define a true Christian? For that matter why should you?
There are many versions of Christianity. Who decides which is the right one? You? Me? The Pope? Fred Phelps? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if there is any validity to Christianity, then it's rather up to God to decide which of the splinter-faiths founded in his name are valid and which aren't (that's assuming that he even cares). Now since none of us happen to be God, that leaves us rather stumped when it comes to deciding who's got that golden ticket.
I would not have asked hooah to define a true Christian had I myself not been able to. Truth is, Granny M, that no human need ever come with a original definition because the Bible defines a true Christian.
When I asked hooah, I was wanting to know whether or not he had the Biblical one.
That would be me. Implicit threats of damnation eh? Stay classy Doc.
Of course, until that blessed day that I receive my richly deserved divine punishment, you are still left with a glaring fallacy as an argument. Care to defend it? Or withdraw it? Or are you just going to resort to implicit threats as a substitute for logic?
That day is anything but blessed, GM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Granny Magda, posted 03-11-2010 10:22 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 03-11-2010 11:00 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 67 by hooah212002, posted 03-11-2010 11:26 PM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 68 of 128 (550011)
03-11-2010 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Granny Magda
03-11-2010 11:00 PM


Re: BOM vs Bible
Chapter and verse please. I'm not just going to take your word for it you know.
There is no one verse that encompasses everything there is to define in a true Christian. If you want to know the defintion, you've got to read the Bible with the intention of discovering it and assimilate what you read.
But two verses readily come to mind on this specific occasion:
1. James 1:22. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
2. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enough is enough. Its time for me to shake the dust off my feet and go to a different place...
G'night.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 03-11-2010 11:00 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Granny Magda, posted 03-12-2010 12:00 AM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 72 of 128 (550016)
03-12-2010 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by ZenMonkey
03-12-2010 12:25 AM


Re: Since you asked.
Even you dropped me to a -567, that wouldn't mean a thing to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-12-2010 12:25 AM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-12-2010 12:38 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 74 of 128 (550019)
03-12-2010 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ZenMonkey
03-12-2010 12:38 AM


Re: Since you asked.
Watch what you're saying.
I only mentioned something about the rating system. A lot of people just jumped in on that and totally lost control. If I replied to them, am I whining? I am as composed as I was at the beginning of the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-12-2010 12:38 AM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-12-2010 11:57 AM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 80 of 128 (550094)
03-12-2010 5:34 PM


Rahvin writes:
It's what you believe to be the truth. I understand that you have a high degree of confidence in that belief. Convincing other people to believe the same is the trick. For that purpose, that particular statement is more off-putting than convincing.
Note Rahvin, that it all depends on how the recipient perceives the message. In my life, I have shared the Gospel with many people of different ages and varying socioeconomic, cultural, and educational backgrounds. You’ve got to realize that the message is not inherently offensive. I’ve seen people who literally cried incessantly when I shared this message with them (more elaborately of course) and the realization of its preciousness led them to believe in God. That’s called faith, Rahvin. On the other hand, I have people here that purport to be highly educated and civil and yet are so closed-minded and dogmatic. You have to ask yourself why it is rude to you. Not everyone thinks it’s rude, to some it’s life-giving.
I do agree that my saying it was not appropriate for this context. I could have been better. However, it wasn't a threat. I said it of out helplessness.
By and large, Dr, atheists do not hate god - that would be much like you hating leprechauns. I don't say that to offend - I'm trying to give you a point of reference. It's difficult to hate something you don't think exists.
That’s called denial, Rahvin. As much you would like me to believe you, I’m not blind. Atheism does not inherently call for God-hatred, I know. But again, our perspectives and worldviews aren't always as pure as they should be, are they? Now and then...we find people who once believed but now don't , who have seem to harbor piles of bitterness inside......
It's not a matter of desensitization - it's a matter of respect for other people, and simple manners. I don't know about you, but when someone threatens me with eternal torment, I consider that rather rude.
Uhuh. Is education inversely proportional to open-mindedness? There are great intellectuals who’ve made priceless contributions to science, who readily acknowledge God. It’s all person-specific. Like I said, that people give their lives, literally, for the very message of the Gospel should ring a really loud bell. Unfortunately, some choose to be deaf.
Indeed. But they could like you more. So far I’ve been trying specifically to remain polite and nice with you, and in your responses to me you seem to have done the same.
If you'd like to end the hostility and actually debate as per the purpose of this site, you may wish to demonstrate the Christian principles of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and of turning the other cheek. It'll help keep the moderation staff sane, and lower the blood pressure of all those involved.
Of course, that goes for them, as well.
There is no debate.
What’s the point in comparing apples to oranges?
There is no common criterion on which to base arguments in the Creation-Evolution debate. One view thinks in terms of the supernatural and the other, the natural.
Creationist: Evolution is wrong. God is creator.
Evolutionist: Well then, if God physically appeared and told me as much, I would believe.
Creationist. He won't. By definition, He's a spirit. You’ve got have faith. (--Insert something like Paley’s argument---)
Evolutionist: I've got to see physical evidence of His existence.
Creationist: You'll never see it...
Evolutionist: Well, then shut up and get out of here. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? You can't even provide logical arguments for your claims?! (You obviously are wrong because---Insert a bunch of logical fallacies here----)
Creationist: God is not logical. He transcends human logic. The Bible is proof of God's existence
Evolutionist: ---Insert profane words-----
See where the two worlds don't meet?
Sheer vanity?
I’m not here to tell you all that Creation is more scientific than evolution. I for one, don’t think even evolution is scientific. Like I said, I don’t wish to crowd in with the insane. I want to be able to understand why you believe the things you guys do. I have not presented one single scientific argument in any forum on these boards. (and yet, I get rated on my argumentation and presentation skills) That should be enough proof to you that I could care less about the debate. My only thread that deals with the debate was in the biological evolution forum. And I made it plenty clear there that my intention was to understand the evolutionary rationale. I mostly listened, they talked. In the flow of conversation, I voiced some personal opinion, that’s about it.. The rest of my time here has been spent on the faith and belief forum, since there we at least have a common criterion for argument.
Can you name one theory in science that you accept as true? In that theory, where does it describe the actions of the supernatural?
Do you likewise reject the theory of gravity because it does not include supernatural forces? Do you likewise reject Germ Theory because it leaves no room for God to spread plagues?
Good grief. Who said that scientific theories need incorporate supernatural elements? Our beloved Darwin had serious questions about theism and God which significantly fueled the development of his theory. Remember the intellectually fulfilled atheist idea? Truth is that no scientific theory denigrates humans to such a pitiful state as evolution does. Evolution is a blight on ethics. If it wants to be called scientific, let it behave like it. Suffice yourself with microevolution. When you talk about stuff like Darwinian evolution being responsible for morality and emotions, that’s when we all realize that this so-called theory is more of a belief system. That’s ethics. Even though it does not tell us how to act or behavethat it makes abstract things seem material and material only (without evidence that too) shows its insanity.
My apologies, Dr. Sing. That was rude of me and uncalled for. I'll try to do better in the future.
That’s okay, ZM.
Enough is enough. I wish this conversation would end.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2010 7:00 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2010 8:04 PM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 84 of 128 (550125)
03-12-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
03-12-2010 7:00 PM


Perhaps. It does indeed depend on how it's received - generally it all hinges upon the acceptance or rejection of 1) the existence of the supernatural, and 2) the "Fallen Nature" doctrine where all mankind is already deserving of that eternal torment. Given acceptance of those, I can see how the offer of avoiding the torture through somethign as easy as accepting what you've already (at that point) been convinced to believe in would be "life-affirming."
Spot on. You're good, Rahvin
Alas, both 1 and 2 are generally not embraced here, are they?
I completely understand. While this is certainly the most fair and honest place for the Creation v. Evolution debate that I;ve come across, there's still an imbalance in numbers for each side. Unfortunately, the Creationists will need to suffer through dogpiles...and when people start to get nasty and stop addressing points, exasperation is inevitable.
But please also note that the mockery and sarcasm displayed from the opposite side is typically the result of similar exasperation. Quite frankly, we see many Creationists here, and quite a few of them wouldn't know a calm and rational discussion if it bit them. Conversations require that we all actually listen to what the other is saying. All too often we see the Creationist who has no intention of discussion, but instead talks at us...and then when he/she realized that they are not preaching to the choir like various and sundry other sites, they use the same exasperated "you're going to Hell!" type of line that you yourself used. They typically don;t stay long after that...but given that you've been courteous and polite with me, at least, I'd like you to stick around. We need more Creationists that we can actually converse with, rather than both sides beating heads against the proverbial brick wall.
I, myself, would like to learn from and contribute to this forum. People like yourself do their part in making it a congenial place to debate. I'm not going to debate the Creation vs. Evolution topic, though. I might ask questions but that's all I'll do when it comes to it. I'd be more than happy to participate in the faith related and other science forums on this board. Like I already said, in my opinion, comparing creation and evolution is wasting precious time, to say the least. I appreciate your calm demeanor and broad-mindedness, Rahvin. I doubted if anyone would detect the helplessness in my tone when I said it.
You've been kind and gracious in our conversation. It is much appreciated. I know how I would react to a person like you vs. someone who's more emotional than rational. And I know that how I react must not vary from person to person. I'll keep working on it...
That's an over-simplification. Typically, former Christians can bear a great deal of resentment at current Christians and the teachings of the religion specifically. That doesn;t mean they hate a God that they don;t think exists.
In fact, this describes me. I was a Christian for over 20 years, and believed quite strongly. I do resent to a degree the fact that I was indoctrinated into the faith before I was ever old enough to make the decision for myself. I do hold many of my former beliefs in contempt. I do consider many of the stories in the Bible to be reprehensible morally if they had actually happened. But I "hate God" in the same way that you might "hate" the antagonist of a movie.
Well, I would think there's a strong reason behind holding such contempt. Perhaps you've had some bad encounters with Christianity. Let me ask you this, Rahvin. If you could pin point one thing that makes you resent Christianity, what would it be?
You are saying two things here:
1) "What I'm saying doesn't have to make any sense at all, and even if what I say is self-contradictory or you can show direct evidence that contradicts my claims, I'm still right."
That's just literally unreasonable.
I'm afraid you perhaps grossly misunderstood me.
By saying God transcends logic, I'm effectively saying we've got to view God as master of our minds rather than master Him with our minds. A LOT of what the Bible says does not make immediate sense to people who don't believe. They may find direct evidence to disprove Biblical claims when the Bible wasn't even talking about what they think it was (unless we're dealing with numbers here, historical data etc etc). You see? Logic cannot capture God.
I don't know if you're familiar with the rich young ruler's story but in it, the young man adressess Christ as "good teacher". Christ replies to him saying "why do you call me good, no one but God is good. So, is Christ effectively denying that He is God? I think a logical person would say yes, Christ is denying deity.
Few people realize that Christ was testing the man's faith. When you read the man's next statement, he addresses Christ as "teacher". So, the lesson isn't really "Is Christ God", rather "Can one please God without faith in Him"?
Apparent logical contradictions, Rahvin.
2) "God exists because the Bible says so."
Why should this be true for the Bible, but not true for the myriad other religious texts that describe mutually exclusive deities? Is not teh Koran then proof of Allah's existence? Does the Rig Veda prove that Vishnu exists? Does the Odyssey prove the existence of Poseidon?
Vishnu never made the claims Jesus did. Neither did any other god. The Bible's uniqueness both in content and structure speaks for itself to the ready reader.
I would love to hear what you got out of your earlier participation. Specifically, I am very interested to hear what you think the Theory of Evolution proposes, in your own words.
Quite irrelevant, actually. I asked them why they wouldn't believe in a designer by giving them a very specific example of the human body. Many admitted that it baffled them, initially. I was interested in finding out how they would justify their claims. All I can tell you is that, I was not satisfied.
I'd love very much to have a benevolent omnipotent being that cares for me. I just can't believe that to be the case...I need evidence, not faith.
Rahvin, Faith is the evidence of things unseen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2010 7:00 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2010 8:17 AM Pauline has replied
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 03-14-2010 2:41 PM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 85 of 128 (550127)
03-12-2010 8:24 PM


Okay, I'm am more than willing to end this topic right. here. right.now.
I have no extra time to keep replying to ill-meant posts. Yet, I do. Just because I don't want it to look like I voice my opinion and then just leave. I'm not providing fuel to this ongoing saga. And if you guys would take it well if I never replied to one of your posts in this thread, then I'll leave this thread for good in a nanosecond.
edit: I did not intend this post at you Rahvin. It was for those were getting tired of this just like I am.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 7:52 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 91 of 128 (550174)
03-13-2010 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
03-13-2010 7:52 AM


Hey Admin
Hey Percy,
The sole reason for my ready willingness to leave is to avoid further friction. Like Rahvin said, I know I could say a lot that makes them "dislike" me. And vice versa. I don't see a need to continue friction. A lot of people have voiced their opinions about my original post (about the rating system) an I've replied to them with truth. I can with confidence say that I've stayed on and took the comments. But now if I want to leave, I think I'm justified. Unless someone, like Rahvin, actually discusses worthy matters. (as opposed to....you're an idiot, get out!"
I'm happy to reply to selected posts. If I ignore stuff from certain people, I think I'm justified. I've already spent 6 pages worth of time on this thread mostly consisting of personal venting, if you will. Granted, like you say, I infuriate people with my religious talk. And I don't want that to happen. I wish to have a civil discussion. I think there's a modest way of spelling out thoughts even when you strongly disagree with the opposite party. I'm learning that....and so guys, if I've been rude, I sincerely apologize.
Percy writes:
You've been fairly successful demanding respect for your religious beliefs because you're very polite yourself, but what Dr Adequate is really saying is that he isn't buying it, that if you're going to speak nonsense then he's going to call it nonsense. Again, Rahvin hit the nail square on the head when he said, "But please also note that the mockery and sarcasm displayed from the opposite side is typically the result of similar exasperation."
I understand, Admin. If it caused them exasperation, they are justified in mocking me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 7:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 11:34 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 92 of 128 (550175)
03-13-2010 10:47 AM


I ought to add this to slevesque's apologetics thread, it's a good question.
You do that, Dr A. That's a better place to start a religious discussion. I'll meet you there.

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 93 of 128 (550176)
03-13-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
03-13-2010 8:17 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
Dr.Sing writes:
I, myself, would like to learn from and contribute to this forum. People like yourself do their part in making it a congenial place to debate. I'm not going to debate the Creation vs. Evolution topic, though.
Yeah, you're pretty much screwed there, aren't you?
No. I choose not to take part in a "Debate" that is meaningless, IMO.
In short, you just have to learn to live with the fact that your religion makes no sense. Only actually you don't. You could believe something, that does make sense.
I am okay with the fact that my religion makes no sense to many human beings.
True. Every other god said that he was a god --- Jesus is the one person to be worshiped as a god by his followers without having claimed divinity.
What's that about?
Take this as a personal invite to take this point to the Faith and Belief forum. I'll be there.
No they didn't. Here's the thread. Would you please try to make your statements more congruent with reality? Thanks.
I'm sorry, Dr Adequate. People did recognize the immense beauty of discussed mechanism. That doesn't mean I'm taking credit for anything. If they think that their theory can explain such a tremendous feature, then more power to them.
Er ... no it isn't.
That's basically where you're going wrong. You think it is, but it's not. The mere fact that you believe an absurdity is not a reason to believe that absurdity.
Here's faith.
It's evidence that people can be idiots, but that's hardly a "thing unseen".
I understand that 9-11 was a tremendously painful incident. And my heart goes out to people who experienced great loss because of it. Such actions which do their thing in the name of religion, are not justified. I completely understand, Dr. A. Religion is abused by many. It is a painful truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2010 8:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 95 of 128 (550179)
03-13-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
03-13-2010 11:34 AM


Re: Hey Admin
If you look at the bottom of any reply to you, like this one, you'll see a link that says, "Dr. Sing has not yet responded." If you click on the link it instantly becomes, "Dr. Sing acknowledges this reply." You can indicate you've seen a message and ignore it all at the same time.
Clicking repeatedly on this link toggles it back and forth between "Dr. Sing has not yet responded" and "Dr. Sing acknowledges this reply." Once you reply it becomes marked as "Dr. Sing has responded."
If you click on your name you'll be brought to a list of all the threads you've participated in. The New Replies column contains a "Yes" if the thread contains replies to which you haven't responded. The up arrow is a link to the first unresponded-to message, the down arrow to the last. If you click on the "Yes" it becomes "Noted," and all your unresponded-to messages get the "Dr Sing acknowledges this reply" link. If you click on the "Noted" it becomes "Yes" and all your unresponded-to messages get the "Dr. Sing has not yet responded" link.
Great. That takes a good deal of pressure off of me. Thank you, Percy.
Avoiding friction isn't a reasonable goal here. The creation/evolution debate is one where passions run high.
The number 1 reason I don't contribute to the creo/evo debate is because it is meaningless, IMO. Number 2 reason is what you just mentioned. I am happy to ask questions about the theory that intrigue me and that's it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 11:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 12:13 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 97 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 12:27 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 99 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2010 12:53 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 3:49 PM Pauline has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024